Rich's column suggests that McCain-Palin's rhetoric is risking the assasination of Sen. Obama. His evidence:
"raucous and insistent cries of 'Treason!'" links to "a crowd member [that is, one crowd member] screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.
"raucous and insistent cries of ... 'terrorist' and 'kill him!'" links to a story in which one reporter claimed that one crowd member allegedly shouted kill him, likely referring to, if anyone, Bill Ayers, and also mentioning that "a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled 'treason!'"
"the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets,'" links to a story in which one member of one crowd slung a racial epithet at a cameraman.
So, of the hundreds of thousands of people who have attended McCain-Palin rallies, we have a grand total of four [update: Rich has one more equally tenuous link, so make that five] whose conduct is said to taint the campaigns. Heck, I can find four similarly unpleasant comments on a typical DailyKos thread.
(see the story on the Minneapolis Star-Tribune website)
The original video of the encounter is interesting, even more so the appended interview with Quinnell in which she foggily elaborates on her beliefs and how she came to them:
(search for Gayle Quinnell on You Tube).
Also, as a bit of perhaps semi-extraneous frosting on the cake, there's this video of a man entering a McCain rally yesterday in Johnstown, Pa., happily waving about his "Obama monkey" doll, and saying "This is little Hussein":
(see Jonathan Martin's story on The Politic0 site).
Good clean fun, huh? And don’t tell me that depictions of President Bush as monkey-like amount to the same thing.
Why not?
Where I live in Seattle, I've heard more than one person say that if Obama loses somehow, they are going to "go all WTO on this place."
And there is now surprise at this kind of thing happening? Please.
Is there anything the Left WON'T say?
With such ridiculous accusations as part of our political discourse, I don't see how anyone can get upset about people describing Obama as a treasonous radical Arab Muslim terrorist.
Well, it's taken. Besides, with those ears he looks more like a bonobo. Bonobama? BO-nobo?
Imagine the outrage!
'Why not?'"
Because the Bush-as-monkey-like swipes were based on tales of his below-average intelligence and his arguably somewhat simian features -- both swipes being unkind but specific to Bush the individual. The only thing about Obama that I can think that would be monkey-like is that he has racial ties to a group of people who have been ridiculed (and worse) as monkey-like as a group.
there's a difference between a lie, and getting something wrong. President Clinton thought they had WMD. Every intelligence agency in the world thought they had WMD. Hussein wanted the world to believe he had WMD. The UN repeatedly sanctioned him.
So you think it's reasonable to accuse Bush of lying in order to kill people....make your case...what was the motive. To ruin himself politically when the facts were revealed? Doesn't make sense. To enrich his friends. Really? You believe that?
This campaign stuff is minor compared to the hateful and devisive bile spilling out of the Democratic party for the last 8 years. Not nutjobs at Democratic events....Party leaders have been fomenting this crap.
I do think that Bush was NOT motivated to murder American soldiers, but rather that their deaths in Iraq were a cost incurred to achieve some other purpose(s). How's that for reasonable?
I think that Rich is pointing to the fear and memories of African-Americans have of worked up White crowds yelling racial slurs - yes, people have been very mean to President Bush, but there is no historical recollection for Southern Methodists of angry white mobs getting themselves riled up with slurs of "Hitler!" and then going lynch the guy or bomb his church. Blacks are uptight about this kind of thing, and given their history, I can't say I especially blame them. Still, Rich himself should place it in this context and not accuse Senator McCain of driving someone to kill Senator Obama - if any of this were really a threat, I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would have it covered.
Nonetheless, politically, I'd avoid this road if I were a politician of the Right - some of those crowds look like angry mobs, and that is unappealing to swing voters, pundits, people with decency, and various other groups. Combined with the Ayers stuff, it gives Senator McCain's campaign a whiff of desperation that is unbecoming and unlikely to succeed in this time of crisis.
I think that Rich is pointing to the fear and memories of African-Americans have of worked up White crowds yelling racial slurs - yes, people have been very mean to President Bush, but there is no historical recollection for Southern Methodists of angry white mobs getting themselves riled up with slurs of "Hitler!" and then going lynch the guy or bomb his church. Blacks are uptight about this kind of thing, and given their history, I can't say I especially blame them. Still, Rich himself should place it in this context and not accuse Senator McCain of driving someone to kill Senator Obama - if any of this were really a threat, I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would have it covered.
Nonetheless, politically, I'd avoid this road if I were a politician of the Right - some of those crowds look like angry mobs, and that is unappealing to swing voters, pundits, people with decency, and various other groups. Combined with the Ayers stuff, it gives Senator McCain's campaign a whiff of desperation that is unbecoming and unlikely to succeed in this time of crisis.
When a homicial maniac says he's going to get a bomb, you better damn well believe it UNLESS you can prove the opposite.
But this kind of garbage didn't start when it recently got directed at Obama. The level of deep hatred for the sitting President has been fanned and fomented by the very highest levels of the Democratic party...not just nut jobs yelling from the crowd.
It's bad for the country. Dissent is fundamental to our system. But calling a sitting President a murderer, a Hitler, is just bad for the country.
I call shenanigans. Obama's ears are freaking huge, and his nose is very flat. I wouldn't draw monkey caricatures of him for the same reason I wouldn't of Bush (it's unkind), but you can't argue his features aren't similarly monkeyish. For gosh sakes, go back and look at his picture.
I'm not saying this to be mean to him; I don't think he's a terrible-looking guy. He's plain in a very Lincoln-like way.
Can you point me to a link describing what you're talking about? I believe Dean was outspoken about Halliburton's no-bid contracts, but he used words like "selling the country down the river" and "overcharging taxpayers." Some Googling led me to this 2003 Dean interview with the blog Liberal Oasis:
I guess because prince Gore was still mad that the throne wasn't a birthright after all
This is somewhat ironic phrasing given that Bush's father was actually President. At any rate, the 2000 election came down to a Supreme Court ruling over a recount in Florida, one that was explicitly not supposed to be used as precedent for future cases. Whether or not you believe the outcome to be legitimate, it was incredibly close. Not sure when Gore ever acted as if the Presidency was a birthright. Also, Bush's Presidency has sucked big time.
Geeze, we're freaking PRIMATES! We've ALL got "somewhat simian features!
I haven't noticed that Bush was any more simian than your average example of homo sapien, unless you've already morphed him to look like Mad Magazine's "Alfred A. Newman". Which is, IIRC, how the whole Bush as a monkey thing got started.
Caucasians don't have a history of being called "porch monkeys."
I think Bush has about as many simian features as Obama, but you are right that it would be bad form to call him or refer to him as a chimp or to caricature him as such, mostly because of the racial conotations. It is just going somewhere that nobody really needs to go.
I am curious to see what direction political satire will take though when it comes to Obama when the election ends and if (although a likely if) he is the winner. Will we get whines every day when he is caricatured in political ads about racism, or will the artists tell him to go suck eggs?
You can't oppose Him on any basis. Using white terrorists is off limits, showing white women in ads is racist, using Wright is racist, using his middle name is racist.
Everything is racist.
That is the emerging theme. Of course, after the accusations against Bill Clinton, is anyone surprised?
It is going to be a long four years.
(The dashes mean he didn't say anything. He just paused. It's not my editing of an actual word he said.)
Meh. The word has lost all meaning then. Go ahead and call me a racist if it only means that I oppose THE ONE's policies, like his support of infanticide.
Honestly. The best way to react to a charge of racism these days isn't disgust and indignation, but boredom. It's such a pathetic, lazy way to smear someone. It doesn't really deserve a response.
A quote from his observations:
If you wanted garbage that might lead people to consider assassination, accusing the President of plotting the public murder of thousands of Americans would seem to do the trick.
Nick
Yes -- and then there's Naomi Klein, for example, who has loudly argued that we're on the road to fascism and dictatorship! Seems like that might be an incitement (to a supporter even nuttier than she is) to go get a gun and save the country from a Bush dictatorship, no?
The relevant exhibit is here.
When a sitting president Obama is being called various incendiary names (e.g., the same names he's being called now, like "terrorist"), presumably you'll be back here warning folks that it's "bad for the country." Right?
The point that Bernstein fails to mention is that Sarah Palin (or some other poo-bah) had addressed these crowds inciting these comments. Palin recently remarked in several different speeches that Obama pal'ed around with terrorists.
While it is obvious that there is hateful and stupid speech to be found on Daily Kos (and, indeed, on the Volokh Conspiracy from time to time) the difference is that nobody at Kos and nobody at VC is one vote away from ascending to the Vice-Presidency.
So it is beyond inane to attempt to compare the mutterings of some Kos poster with what has been happening at Palin/McCain rallies. Even if the most vile speech has come from audience members, it really isn't that different than the the garbage that Palin utters.
This post pretty much demonstrates that Bernstein cannot think rationally about this subject.
If you don't like it, I'm sure a nice, noble king can be arranged...
Frank rich and other obama supporters are blissfully ignorant on who has actually been threatening politicians with violence.
Of course this is yet another example just how nauseatingly and comprehensively the media is in the tank for obama
LEFTY ASSASSINATION FANTASIES:
Yep. I sure will be. There's no place for that either. And it will be bad for the country..
But most libs think it's ok to call Bush a lying murdering Hitler, because he is you know.
Of course, no one is going to accuse you of being racist if you attack Obama as being a detached intellectual or an elitist (stupid, yes, but not racist). But with all these potential attacks off limits, you might just need to start coming up with substantive reasons for disliking Obama like having disagreements with his health care policy, his mandatory/voluntary service program or his protectionist rhetoric. And imagine the damage that will do to political discourse!
On the flip side, you are welcome to point me towards a single statement by any prominent Democrat telling their masses that President Bush is decent, deserving of respect, was making a difficult decision in the face of perhaps less than perfect intelligence, but against the backdrop of presiding over the devastating attack on American soil and being responsible to ensure that it didn't happen again. (by the way....it hasn't. knock wood. I'm sure Bush deserves no credit at all for that.) It's not good politics for a democrat to show any respect for Bush. And none have.
And even those are worrisome, frankly. I have worked in the state psychiatric hospital in NH (think primaries) since 1978. In addition to the national assassination news, we get more than our share of unbalanced people threatening to kill prominent political figures. My good liberal coworkers chuckled at threats to Reagan with the standard joke "well, you can understand that" or "I've thought of that myself." They turned white-faced and spoke in serious, hushed tones when a Clinton-threatener came on board. Then it was all humorous again after Bush was elected. These are psychologists, social workers, physicians - overwhelmingly liberal folks with graduate degrees. Not violent, but excusing violence. Just last week a boomer special ed teacher told me it was shameful that America didn't take to the streets after the 2000 election. The others present - all progressives - made no demurring comments to tone her down.
So no, I don't share your assumption that it's only those dangerous conservatives who advocate violence. I think the balance scales are well the other way, actually.
There's no doubt about the lying part. For example:
- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in
- a wiretap requires a court order
The WTC was first hit about a month after Clinton took office. We then went through the rest of Clinton's term (almost 8 years) without suffering another domestic attack (unless you want to claim that Timothy McVeigh is part of the vast Islamofascist conspiracy). But I'm sure Clinton "deserves no credit at all for that." Because it sure is easy to find Rs who give him that credit, right?
And he managed to do it without bankrupting us by spending money we didn't have on a war we didn't need.
If Obama is assassinated by a crazed McCain supporter, I think McCain and Palin should be jointly liable for wrongful death (along with the killer), and charged criminally with conspiracy to commit murder.
It's reasonably foreseeable that McCain and Palin's actions (particularly Palin's, with the encouragement and support of McCain) will result in a wackjob, racist, frightened white guy with a "Remember 9-11" bumper sticker on his truck taking an assassination attempt on Barack Obama's life "in the name of Christ." I'm actually moderately surprised that no such attempts have yet occurred, but the "who is the real Barack Obama - he hates america and associates with america-hating terrorist" angle of the McCain-Palin campaign only started about 2 weeks ago.
I don't want to see anyone harmed, just to be perfectly clear.
There is nothing in the McCain rallies that does not have its equivalent on the other side. You can have it either way, but not both ways.
Good question. Which one picked up more of the Ron Paul vote?
I don't have police, but I did point out that a white guy wearing a shirt that says "NIGGER please it's a WHITE house." Bonus points for the McCain/Palin sticker.
For some reason I think Prof. Bernstein would be much more concerned if that epithet was aimed at Jewish people.
I'd like you to cite just one direct quote from McCain or Palin that you think goes over the line to incitement.
Just one.
I agree with your general point, but he also seems to be oddly unconcerned about Palin's witchhunter who talked about "the Israelites" and the "wealth of the wicked." Shortly before he gave her an anti-witch blessing.
And the same juxtaposition of similarly expressive Obama/chimp photos can be made as well. The similarity is in the eyes of the viewer.
And it's good for the country to smear "most libs" with the behavior of a tiny fraction of liberals who actually engage in it? Because I personally know more "libs" than I could come close to estimating, and the number I've heard call Bush anything like "a lying, murdering Hitler" is one. I've seen it often enough in anonymous blog comments, but if you think the commenters here, much less at any of the more extreme sites that partisans draw from to caricature their opponents bare a meaningful resemblance to "most liberals" or "most conservatives" or "most anythings" you should really get out more.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.